I am a Firstie (Class of 2020) -- Ask Me Anything

[trackandfield08]

A relatively short interview hardly provides the proper insight - especially given the number of cadets being sorted. Moreover, the purpose of the change is to reduce the instances of "5 and fly". You shouldn't get to leapfrog me simply because you agree to a longer initial commitment- especially if I worked twice as hard as you as a cadet. Work ethic is a trait. If you don't have it as a cadet you wont just miraculously develop it as an officer. Just my opinion. I respect yours

Disclaimer: I am in no way knowledgeable of the inner workings of the assignment process for the U.S. Army or USMA.

That being said...

While it may be relatively short, an interview reveals the intangibles that a transcript or class rank will not (character, an ability to present their thoughts in a clear and concise manner, personality, etc). Assuming the Army has some similarities with the USCG, each community (branch) has a different personality and persona. The cadet needs to be able to fit that persona as well as demonstrate academic, physical, and military prowess. For example, USCGA cadets interested in flight school must take a written exam and interview in addition to being judged by their class rank. The interview is known as the deciding factor - I have seen cadets get the top score of the test and ultimately be denied flight school and I have seen cadets at the bottom of the class be awarded a position. Just because a cadet has a high rank, it doesn't mean they are the best fit for the branches they are interested in.

Furthermore, I think it is poor logic to assume that because a cadet has a higher class rank, they must have worked harder. Yes, there are cadets/midshipmen at all SAs who are content to only meet the minimum in any or all factors of class rank. However, there are cadets who struggle on a day to day basis despite doing everything in their power to learn the material needed to pass a class. Just as physical fitness comes easier or harder to others, so do academics. I can tell you the number one cadet in my class was extremely intelligent and, although she put the work in, there were several subjects that just came easily to her. That doesn't devalue the effort she put in or her accomplishments by any means, but it doesn't make her better than the cadets who didn't have a natural aptitude but spent several hours in tutoring and with their instructor outside of classroom hours only to barely scrape a C.

I agree with you in that you absolutely need a good work ethic to truly succeed as an officer. But an officer's duties and responsibilities are vastly different than a cadet's, and are inherently less "academic." Leadership is key, as is organization, an ability to manage your time effectively, and being able to research and think critically (as well as several other things). Class rank may tell you some things, but I don't believe it reveals who will be a great officer and who will not.

 

[Objective]

In fairness to the process, I am going to reserve comment on the branching system until after Branch Night.

However, I believe retention issues have more to do with things other than branch selection. In the 1980's a Branch Commandant conducted "exit interviews" to try to understand why so many top performers were leaving. Clearly, it wasn't lack of "fit".

Life in the Army is much different than life as a Cadet, irrespective of branch. Affinity with Army life will determine length of service. Opportunities outside the Army are also a factor - a struggling economy magically improves retention.

Nevertheless - if you agree to a longer commitment, you get preferential treatment. That runs counter to the spirit of any meritorious system. You're going to find the traits that make you successful as a cadet have an impact on your performance as an officer.

 

[Objective]

I agree with you in that you absolutely need a good work ethic to truly succeed as an officer. But an officer's duties and responsibilities are vastly different than a cadet's, and are inherently less "academic."

"Inherently less academic" - that may be true for junior officers. However, its essential for Senior officers.

 

[emwvmi01]

"Inherently less academic" - that may be true for junior officers. However, its essential for Senior officers.

This is based on the assumption that being a military officer is meritocratic. While that is somewhat true the intent of branching isn't to reward "hard" work be it in the classroom or PT scores it is to get the Army the officer most suited for said career field. The Talent Management Task Force initiatives and reforms are looking at what knowledge, skills and behaviors are best suited for each branch. I would also dispute that the Army needs the best academic performers. What I think is currently being pushed are exams which analyze the ability to think and operate at the strategic level. There are a variety of studies that show your 4.0 grinds may not be your best for executive level functioning and I think that is what the service looks at.

 

[trackandfield08]

"Inherently less academic" - that may be true for junior officers. However, its essential for Senior officers.

I believe you're misinterpreting my use of the term - I mean academic in the traditional education sense. Right now, a cadet's success is determined primarily through their ability to sit in a classroom, complete assignments, demonstrate proficiency through exams/labs/presentations, and achieve a sufficient letter grade - the higher the grade, the greater their apparent success.

That model does not typically exist as an officer outside of professional training courses - so, yes those skills are important to retain, but they are not the primary objectives of being an officer. Now, absolutely an officer needs to demonstrate an ability to learn - in my opinion, you should never stop learning and I think every officer corps embraces this concept. Senior officers are often extremely well-read and well-informed individuals on a variety of subjects inside and out of the military. It's why you need to obtain a master's degree to promote, you need to demonstrate that you can think at a strategic/executive level and make decisions. But, my original intent behind my statement stands, your class rank does not determine your ability to be a good officer nor does it adequately predict your success in any particular branch.

I concur with @emwvmi01 , the officer path is not a meritocracy. It's a combination of what you do, what your supervisor's think/see you, how well they think you do it, and how they write that in your evaluation.

I'm sorry you and your DS feel that this new process is unfair and a slight against your son's success. But I can imagine several months and years of work were put in to design a program that better fits the needs of the Army, not the desires of an individual. Time will tell if it's an effective tool. If it isn't, eventually it will go away. Your son has found himself in the unfortunate position of being affected by the test phase of new policy, not unlike the new Army physical fitness test. I'm sure it won't be the last time.

 

[Objective]

This is based on the assumption that being a military officer is meritocratic. While that is somewhat true the intent of branching isn't to reward "hard" work be it in the classroom or PT scores it is to get the Army the officer most suited for said career field. The Talent Management Task Force initiatives and reforms are looking at what knowledge, skills and behaviors are best suited for each branch. I would also dispute that the Army needs the best academic performers. What I think is currently being pushed are exams which analyze the ability to think and operate at the strategic level. There are a variety of studies that show your 4.0 grinds may not be your best for executive level functioning and I think that is what the service looks at.

You're already grouped in a bucket, and ranked. Your acceptance of a longer commitment leap frogs you past me ... that's the part I am referring to

 

[jl123]

Nevertheless - if you agree to a longer commitment, you get preferential treatment. That runs counter to the spirit of any meritorious system. You're going to find the traits that make you successful as a cadet have an impact on your performance as an officer.

Agree. I will discuss BRADSO in more detail after Branch Night. I tend to side with the "Merit first and foremost" argument, but keep an open mind based on results. The simulation provided some startling outcomes; we'll see if those same choices are made when it actually counts.

 

[Objective]

Agree. I will discuss BRADSO in more detail after Branch Night. I tend to side with the "Merit first and foremost" argument, but keep an open mind based on results. The simulation provided some startling outcomes; we'll see if those same choices are made when it actually counts.

Very interested in your response. Please do post if you have time ... and good luck !

 

[bookreader]

From what my cadet has told me, the interview is optional. Evidently not all cadets opted to be interviewed for branch selection. Also, they are not all short interviews - my cadet had a 45 min interview. He is excited about the addition of the option of an interview.

 

[Jarhead713]

How was the IOCT run? @Tripster202

 

[SMP]

"Right now, a cadet's success is determined primarily through their ability to sit in a classroom, complete assignments, demonstrate proficiency through exams/labs/presentations, and achieve a sufficient letter grade - the higher the grade, the greater their apparent success."

I don't believe that to be an entirely accurate statement. The OML is made up of 55% academic, 30% military score, and 15% physical score. Demonstrating proficiency in the military and physical areas is significant. It appears to some that one of the goals of the new system is to encourage more people to BRADSO, thereby increasing the retention rate. They circulated the class rankings and preference selections for all cadets, and by analyzing the data one could reasonably conclude who might have to BRADSO to get a preferred branch.

 

[NJDadofDSUSMA2024Hopeful]

I have no dog in this fight (hope DS is a dog in it a few years from now), but very intrigued about how this will turn out.
2 more years is a long time if you're only thinking of serving 5. If you think you'll make a career out of the Army or at least stay 7 or 8, then the two years means little, and you get the branch you prefer. That's what I find interesting...there's a bit of sample bias inherent in this in that the cadets who choose the additional 2 years were probably more inclined to stay in longer anyway.
Taking that (big) assumption further, if that's what they were thinking, maybe there isn't a need to try as hard to improve their OML because they feel they can get what they want by choosing the additional two years...
On the other hand, you have kids who tried fairly hard but weren't quite in the top half, maybe were on the fence about whether they could see themselves staying for more than 5, but since they didn't get their branch, they decided to 5 and dive.
Just a thought. These things are obviously hard to game theory. I'm sure the Army put a ton of thought into it before making this change.

 

[Impulsive]

IMHO, the thing everyone needs to remember is that when you accept your appointment you are basically agreeing to "the needs of the service". The fact that you rank #1 in your Class and want to fly, does not necessarily mean you would make a successful or good pilot, or that you should just get your first choice based on nothing other than Class Rank, not considering aptitude or ability. Also please be open to considering that fact that an "electrical engineering major" graduates with maybe 185 credit hours and takes lots of STEM courses, while a "Government or Economics Major" may graduate with 125 credit hours, while taking general education classes. How is it fair for the cadet that completes 185 credit hours but finishes 125th in his class because of the difficulty and intensity of his major to be denied his opportunity to be a "Combat Engineer" simply because the Economics Major finished 10th in their Class and thought that Branch would be exciting?

The Services have used this "new" system in the enlisted ranks for some time. When you take the ASVAB, you may be offered a specific "rate" with associated Class A school, or if you fail to show the basic aptitude for a rate you may want, you may have to "strike" that rate in the field and show you can do it before you get that Rating, or take a different choice that you show more aptitude for.

While it may not benefit the cadet with the highest QPA, the new system allows Commanders in the "Branch" a cadet desires to evaluate those cadets for future service, and not just have to accept a cadet because of their Class Rank. Not necessarily a "better" system, but at least give it a chance for a few years and see if it changes retention rates or not. Maybe they will find it does not do what they hope it will do (put the best qualified into the branch that best suits them), and they return to the old "Class Rank" system. I am sorry you and your DS do not agree with this change, but your DS signed up for "needs of the service" and how the service determines that is up to them not you or I.

 

[seb.g.b]

^^
I made it clear in every interview that I went to that I wanted to be at West Point. In all of your applications and interviews, those reviewing your packet want to see a candidate who will become a successful cadet and eventually a successful officer. There will be a lot of money spent developing, training and educating you and they want to ensure that the money is put to good use.

How did you indicate you "wanted" (mobile so I can't italicize) to go to WP? I personally am looking to go into USNA, but the same concept applies. Whatre some things you said in the interview that made them realize your strong desire to attend?

 

[Noahlia123]

How do I find out how many slots my congressman will you this year? Just interviewed for nomination but can’t determine if he has 1 or if it’s a year he uses 2. Thanks

 

[Objective]

IMHO, the thing everyone needs to remember is that when you accept your appointment you are basically agreeing to "the needs of the service". The fact that you rank #1 in your Class and want to fly, does not necessarily mean you would make a successful or good pilot,

Suppose you aren't sure if you want to stay more than five years. You wanted to serve your five and make a decision. Now, if you get leapfrogged by someone who decides to BRADSO and don't get your choice, the decision may be easier. Seem fair? Perhaps we should just do away with class rank as its so meaningless

ps - as someone with a Masters in Mathematics from a top school, I disagree with your Engineering vs Econ premise as the subjective grading in the latter poses a different type of challenge.

 

[jl123]

An Electrical Engineering major does not graduate from USMA with 60 more credit hours than an Econ or Government major. 60 credit hours = 20 courses!

The credit hours required for all majors are about the same. If a cadet doesn't validate any courses, an Electrical Engineering major will take 1 more course than an Economics major - 3 credit hours. Also, Economics at USMA is pretty quantitative, so a better comparison regarding difficulty might be to a Humanities major.

Even accounting for differences in difficulty, majors do not have as much of an impact on class rank as one might think. All non-STEM majors still take the same core STEM math and science courses as STEM majors, and non-STEM majors are required to take a 3 course engineering sequence. That combined with the 55% academic weighting in class rank substantially reduces the effect of majors on class rank.

 

[VelveteenR]

Regardless of how any posters here feel about the "fairness" of BRADSO, the Army has determined it worthwhile to give a boost to those willing to commit to longer service. If your high-OML cadet wants an additional boost for a branch, s/he is as welcome to BRADSO as any other cadet and enjoy that "leapfrog" benefit. BRADSO is open to anyone; seems fair to me.

 

[Objective]

Regardless of how any posters here feel about the "fairness" of BRADSO, the Army has determined it worthwhile to give a boost to those willing to commit to longer service. If your high-OML cadet wants an additional boost for a branch, s/he is as welcome to BRADSO as any other cadet and enjoy that "leapfrog" benefit. BRADSO is open to anyone; seems fair to me.

While it may seem fair to you, simply neglecting the premise I (and several others) put forward does not make it so. BRADSO exists to lengthen retention - period. That it does so by disenfranchising certain cadet achievements is a shame. But, as I've always told my kids, life isn't fair. Accept it and work harder.

 

[Impulsive]

Suppose you aren't sure if you want to stay more than five years. You wanted to serve your five and make a decision. Now, if you get leapfrogged by someone who decides to BRADSO and don't get your choice, the decision may be easier. Seem fair? Perhaps we should just do away with class rank as its so meaningless

ps - as someone with a Masters in Mathematics from a top school, I disagree with your Engineering vs Econ premise as the subjective grading in the latter poses a different type of challenge.

It's nice you have a Masters.....but unfortunately that makes no difference to the military. What does and should is the aptitude for someone desiring to go into a particular field, whether Officer or Enlisted. I was not discussing BRADSO, that is a totally different animal than the "new" Branching system. I was merely giving my opinion on that new system as I think it could be the best way to possibly evaluate potential candidates for success. It is possible that the military identified a "flaw" in the Class Rank system as sometimes the person with the best academic performance is not necessarily the best candidate for a particular job. My guess is that the top QPA's in any Academy probably also have the best abilities and options in whatever Branch they feel they want. But as a 21-23 yr old, just maybe that 30 yr old who has been doing the job for six or seven years may be a pretty good judge as to which prospective candidates fit what they are looking for. It is the same in the civilian world, sometimes a potential employee does not get the position, but someone with less education but more defined skills or aptitude may.

As for not wanting to stay more than five years, that is everyone's choice, but maybe the needs of the service place a value on someone willing to stay longer and see where it takes them, especially if in that particular field it may take two or three years to become proficient and skilled in the particulars of that job or position.

While I sympathize with your son's feelings towards the "system" being changed right when he was where he thought he should be to get his first choice of job, again I remind you and your son that everyone who joins the military needs to be aware of "The Needs of The Service". If any particular service deems that they have a problem with retention, performance, or readiness, they are free to change the systems by which they identify potential candidates for the positions available. I would guess if someone was high in Class Rank it may not make a whole lot of difference in Branching as they would be intelligent, well rounder, and successful. If BRADSO causes a problem and a candidate wants a particular job, staying an additional two years at age 26 or 27 still means they are under 30 when they enter the civilian workforce, but instead of 5 yrs experience, they now have 7 yrs, and I fail to see where that becomes a problem, especially if they are in the field they want. JMHO....sorry if I offended anyone.